Christmas Island bat 'months from extinction'

Australian government accused of jeopardising fate of tiny pipistrelle
Kathy Marks, The Independent 2 May 09;

Australia's rarest mammal, the Christmas Island pipistrelle bat, is months away from extinction, and wildlife experts say the government is failing to take action that could save the species.

A recent audit of the pipistrelle – a minuscule bat found only on Christmas Island, an Australian territory in the Indian Ocean – concluded that fewer than 20 individuals remain, all roosting under one piece of bark in the same tree.

Experts say the only way to rescue the species is to capture the surviving bats and breed them in captivity. However, the Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, claims that would entail "unacceptably high risks" to the pipistrelle, which is not much bigger than the tip of a thumb. Instead, he has set up a captive breeding trial involving a closely related micro-bat.

By the time the trial yields results, the pipistrelle will be extinct, according to Michael Pennay, president of the Australasian Bat Society. Over the past 15 years, the population has fallen by 90 per cent. "If it continues to decline at the same rate, the species will vanish altogether within months," said Mr Pennay, a zoologist.

"It could happen in one day. All it takes is for that tree to fall down – and it's a dead tree."

Australia's leading bat scientists are so concerned that they have drawn up a rescue plan and offered their services for free. A team of experts is willing to travel to Christmas Island, capture the remaining bats and establish them in enclosures at a research station. Mr Garrett has yet to respond.

Australia already has the worst mammal conservation record of any country. Of all the species lost over the past 200 years, nearly half have been Australian. They include the Tasmanian Tiger, or thylacine, which died out in the 1930s. Thanks to conservation efforts, it is half a century since the last Australian mammal, a species of wallaby, became extinct. Now, unless Mr Garrett has a change of heart, the pipistrelle looks likely to join the long list.

Bat experts accuse the government of dragging its feet. The pipistrelle has been classified as critically endangered, the highest risk category, since 2006. Covered in soft fur, the creatures weigh less than a 10p piece. Contrary to popular perception about bats, they have excellent eyesight. They also use a sonar-like system to navigate their surroundings.

Scientists have no idea why the population has decreased so catastrophically, but they theorise that disease, or introduced pests – which include black rats, yellow crazy ants, wolf snakes and giant centipedes – may be to blame. Several other species native to Christmas Island have experienced steep declines, or disappeared.

Most of Christmas Island is a national park, so habitat loss is not a factor. The island was annexed by Britain in the late 19th century; sovereignty was transferred to Australia in 1958, and nowadays about 1,500 people of Chinese, European and Malay ancestry live there.

Mr Pennay insisted that the government trial was unnecessary, since there was already plenty of evidence that micro-bats could thrive in captivity. "The highest priority now is to secure these bats from whatever is threatening them," he said. "If you leave them in the wild, they'll almost certainly go extinct."

Read more!

US Forest Service closes caves to stop bat fungus

Brian Farkas, Associated Press Yahoo News 1 May 09;

CHARLESTON, W.Va. – The U.S. Forest Service is closing thousands of caves and former mines in national forests in 33 states in an effort to control a fungus that has already killed an estimated 500,000 bats.

Bats have been dying at alarming rates from what scientists call "white-nose syndrome," so-named because it appears as a white powder on the face and wings of hibernating bats.

The problem was first spotted in New York and within two years has spread to caves in West Virginia and Virginia. There's no evidence the fungus is harmful to people.

Researchers believe the fungus is spread from bat to bat, but they have not ruled out the possibility that humans tromping from cave to cave might help to transmit it on their shoes and equipment, said Dennis Krusac, a biologist with the service's Southern region.

"We don't have the answers at this point," he said. "If we have answers in a year or sooner, we can open them back up."

Forest Service biologist Becky Ewing said an emergency order was issued last week for caves in 20 states from Minnesota to Maine. A second order covering the Forest Service's 13-state Southern region should be issued later this month.

The sites will be closed for up to a year, she said.

The orders follow a March request by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for people to voluntarily stay out of caves in 17 states.

Biologists are concerned the fungus could wipe out endangered Indiana, Virginia and Ozark big-eared and gray bats.

Bats play a key role in keeping insects such as mosquitoes under control. Between April and October, they usually eat their body weight in bugs per night. The loss of 500,000 bats means 2.4 million pounds of bugs aren't eaten in a year, Ewing said.

New York caver Peter Haberland said organized caving groups shouldn't object to the closures.

"For a period of a year, most people can deal with that," said Haberland, who serves on the Northeastern Cave Conservancy's board.

He said the order should have little effect in the Northeast since just a few national forests there offer caving and many caves are on private property.

Peter Youngbaer, white nose syndrome liaison for the National Speleological Society, another caving group, said education will be key because many people who explore caves don't belong to organized groups.

"There is a huge concern," he said. "The recreation aspect is probably the least of our concerns."

The Forest Service order says people caught in a cave or mine face up to six months in jail and fines of up to $10,000. Ewing said Forest Service officials will enforce the bans.

Youngbaer said he isn't convinced humans help transmit the fungus, which kills the bats because it affects their hibernation habits, causing them to starve.

A study based on soil samples taken from 200 sites in 30 states should help resolve that question.

"There is no question that it's spreading bat to bat and spreading from bat to bat rapidly," he said. "If it turns out the fungus is living in the caves anyway ... humans moving around doesn't mean anything."

Many of the caves in question are in the 919,000-acre Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia, which this week announced it would extend a ban imposed last year that only affected caves considered to be at high risk for the fungus.

On Friday, the Indiana Department of Natural Resources moved to close caves on state-owned property until April even though the disease has not been found in Indiana.

Last month, officials closed all of the caves in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Krusac said the orders do not affect commercial caves on private property.

Officials in the Ozark National Forest are debating whether to impose restrictions on wild cave adventures on the forest's Blanchard Springs Caverns.

Read more!

Pesticides in Botswana raise fear for birds

Yahoo News 1 May 09;

GABORONE (AFP) – Conservationists in Botswana fear that a pesticide used by the government to prevent pest birds ravaging commercial crops could kill other species, including the spectacular Kori bustard.

Officials are targeting breeding places of the quelea with aerial sprays in Panadamatenga in northern Botswana where it was reported that the birds were destroying 20 tonnes of corn per day.

Birdlife Botswana project manager Keddy Mooketsa said the quelea, which gathers in huge flocks, was troublesome as it bred quickly but that environmentally safer controls like bush burning should be used.

"That area is a breeding site for the white-backed vultures which can feed on the dead birds. The Kori bustard also is found there and it feeds on insects which would not escape the chemical."

The Kori bustard is the world's heaviest flying bird, with mature males weighing close to 20 kilogram (44 pounds), and Birdlife Botswana lists considers it to be of conservation concern.

The white-backed vulture is listed as near threatened by the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

"Other birds of prey which feed on the birds can also be affected," Mooketsa added.

Acting director in Botswana's department of crop production Barutwa Thebenala said recommended spray dosages of the pesticide, cyanophos, were being used.

An environmental study was under way with Britain's Greenwich University and the Plant Protection Institute.

"We are not in a position to talk about the side effects yet because we are in the middle of the study," he said.

The government is also using explosives to blast the nesting grounds of the quelea.

Read more!

Fertilisers 'reducing diversity'

Mark Kinver, BBC News 1 May 09;

Scientists have identified why excessive fertilisation of soils is resulting in a loss of plant diversity.

Extra nutrients allow fast growing plants to dominate a habitat, blocking smaller species' access to vital sunlight, researchers have found.

As a result, many species are disappearing from affected areas.

A team from the University of Zurich, writing in Science, warned that tighter controls were needed in order to prevent widespread biodiversity loss.

Estimates suggest that the global level of nitrogen and phosphorous available to plants has doubled in the past 50 years.

Looking at grasslands, the researchers said it was widely recognised that an increase of chemical nutrients in an ecosystem led to a loss of diversity, but the mechanism of how it was occurring had been difficult to determine.

"You would think that more [nutrients] would lead to more biodiversity," said co-author Andrew Hector, a researcher at the University of Zurich's Institute of Environmental Sciences.

"Yet it is considered to be one of the main threats to biodiversity this century."

'Winner takes all'

Professor Hector explained that there were two main hypotheses: "One is that the presence of more resources led to a general increase in the strength of competition among plants.

"The other is a little bit more mechanistic," he told BBC News.

"When you get an increase in fertilisation, you get an increase in productivity, leading to increased plant biomass and increased shading.

"This shifts the idea to light being the critical resource, with shorter species being shaded out by taller species, resulting in a loss in diversity."

Professor Hector's team, led by PhD student Yann Hautier, fitted lights to the understory of grass in boxes containing fertilised soil.

"Additional understory light compensated for the increased shading caused by the greater above-ground biomass production," they explained.

The supplementary light "prevented the loss of species and maintained… levels of diversity".

The findings led the team to conclude that it was the lack of access to light that affects diversity, not an increase in the strength of competition.

"We have done the critical experiment that has been asking to be done for the past 35 years," said Professor Hector.

"If it all depends on light levels, then if you put the light back then you should prevent a loss of biodiversity."

However, he added that their findings did not offer a "magic bullet" for conservationists.

"What our research shows is that competition for light is very asymmetric.

"So if a plant can get between the sun and its competitors, not only can it get all the light it needs but it can also block its competitors' access to light.

"Because this competition for light is such a 'winner takes all', it emphasises how important it is that we control nutrient enrichment."

Why more fertiliser harms plant diversity
Helen Thomson, New Scientist 1 May 09;

The 35-year-old mystery of why fertilisers decrease biodiversity has finally been solved. The secret? They increase competition for sunlight.

Adding fertilisers to grasslands increases the productivity of plants, but leads to a major drop in biodiversity.

The amount of nitrogen and phosphorus available to plants has doubled in the last 50 years, but the reason why this has harmed diversity has not been easy to answer. The debate has centred on whether fertilisers increase competition above or below ground – for sunlight or soil resources?

To resolve the argument, Yann Hautier and Andy Hector from the University of Zurich, Switzerland built their own experimental plant community from scratch.
The light fantastic

Hautier's team grew 32 plant communities for four years, before transferring them to a glass house.

Each community comprised four different sets of six species. Half were fertilised, the others were left unfertilised. Half of each of these sets had light added, using a system of three fluorescent tubes that were raised as the canopy grew, while the other half were left to grow in normal light conditions.

After two years, the sets that were fertilised in normal light conditions showed a significant increase in productivity and biomass, but lost around one-third of their species diversity compared to the unfertilised groups. Those that were fertilised and given additional light showed no significant loss of diversity.
Underground competition

To uncover whether underground competition for root space had any influence on biodiversity, the team added two new species of plant at the beginning of the second year. The roots of half these plants were contained in plastic tubes, which prevented any below-ground competition: the other half were left exposed.

Removing below-ground competition from fertilised plots had no detectable impact on the mortality of the seedlings, compared to those that were exposed to full root competition, says Hautier.

"In the fertilised groups without additional light, there was no difference with or without the root-tube – they died both ways. Even if we remove competition below ground, these plants are unable to grow."

Drew Purves, a computational ecologist from Microsoft Research Cambridge is impressed with the team's findings.

"This is a rare example of a simple experiment providing an unambiguous answer to an important ecological question. If these results are general to temperate grasslands – which seems likely – then we can start to develop more targeted policies to offset one of the most important sources of diversity loss in grasslands."

Journal reference: Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1169640

Read more!

Study: Grazing threatens wildlife habitat in US West

Scott Sonner, Associated Press Yahoo News 1 May 09;

RENO, Nev. – Conservationists say livestock grazing poses a threat to a wide variety of fish and other wildlife across more than three-fourths of their dwindling habitats on federal land in the West.

Using satellite mapping and federal records, WildEarth Guardians began a study last year matching wildlife habitat and U.S. grazing allotments across more than 260 million acres of federal land in the West.

It includes practically all of the remaining habitat of the Greater sage grouse, a hen-sized game bird the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is considering adding to the list of threatened or endangered species in 11 Western states from California to Wyoming. The environmental group wants the bird protected.

"The results confirm — in graphic form — previous research finding that incessant, ubiquitous public lands grazing has contributed to the decline of native wildlife," concludes the report entitled "Western Wildlife Under Hoof." The report is scheduled to be released Friday.

The group said continued grazing in ever-shrinking habitat hampers the recovery of fish and wildlife and in some cases threatens them with extinction.

Cattle and sheep trample vegetation, damage soil, spread invasive weeds, spoil water and deprive native wildlife of forage, the report said. It notes that then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt said in 2005 that livestock grazing "is the most damaging use of public land."

Mark Salvo, WildEarth Guardians' grazing program specialist and author of the report, said the new data suggest livestock have "done more damage to the Earth than the chain saw and bulldozer combined."

Jeff Eisenberg, director of federal lands for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, criticized the findings as part of an effort to shut down grazing on federal lands.

"There's a number of environmental groups that have decided the best way to spend their time and the money of their funders is to eliminate the families and communities that have made the West what it is today," he told AP in an e-mail. "These groups don't deserve a dignified response."

Don Kirby, president of the Society for Range Management and director of North Dakota State University's School of Natural Resource Sciences, said livestock grazing is an important part of a "landscape management toolbox" that can be used to reduce wildfires and improve wildlife habitat.

"Western rangelands and the wildlife species that live there have coexisted with grazing by large herbivores for tens of thousands of years," Kirby said.

The report found livestock grazing is permitted on 91 percent of the Greater sage grouse's habitat and that grazing operations are active on 72 percent of the habitat. Grazing is active on 55 percent of the federal range of the Gunnison sage grouse and is permitted on 84 percent of it.

Likewise, grazing is permitted on about 80 percent of public land in the historic range of several cutthroat trout species, including 88 percent of the Lahontan and 76 percent of the Bonneville.

It's also permitted on about 75 percent of the federal habitat of four species of prairie dogs.

"The species included in our report are representative of the hundreds of wildlife species that are threatened by public lands grazing," said Salvo, whose group has offices in Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona.

The bulk of the federal land studied is managed by the Bureau of Land Management, which issued grazing permits and leases to 15,799 ranchers and other operators covering 128 million acres of U.S. land in 2006.

BLM spokesman Jeff Krauss said the agency has not fully reviewed the report but maintains "well-managed grazing provides numerous ecological and environmental benefits."

Among other things, WildEarth Guardians recommends buying out permits from ranchers and others willing to remove their livestock from grazing land.

"There is a greater economic value in non-consumptive uses of public land — hunting, fishing, birdwatching, hiking, camping — than livestock grazing," the report said.

The Nevada Department of Wildlife shares concerns about dwindling wildlife populations but believes there is a place for grazing on public land, spokesman Chris Healy said.

If ranchers end up selling their land, it could be subdivided and lead to development even more problematic for wildlife, he said.

"It behooves us to get everybody who uses the land to be part of the solution and that's what we've been trying to do with the sage grouse. If one sector or user of the land feels like they are being ganged up on, the odds of coming up with a solution that will work are not good," he said.

Read more!

Robot Animals Snare U.S. Poachers

Maryann Mott, National Geographic News 1 May 09;

On a remote U.S. Forest Service road in Arizona a few years ago, the driver of a white minivan slowly rolls to a stop, sticks a rifle out the window, and starts firing at what look to be wild turkeys.

State officers hiding in nearby bushes emerge, running toward the vehicle and shouting: "Game and Fish Department! Cease fire! Put down your weapon!"

The driver speeds off, but is caught a short distance down the dirt road by another officer. The hunter is cited for discharging a weapon from a vehicle—a U.S. $500 fine.

Unbeknownst to the driver, the turkey is actually a robotic decoy designed to catch such outdoor outlaws. Other robots include swimming moose, white-tailed deer and black bear.

Conservationists estimate that, for every animal killed legally in a hunting season, one animal is lost to poaching.

But year-round sting operations—like the one conducted near Young, Arizona, and in nearly every other U.S. state—are helping to level the playing field by saving wildlife from being illegally killed or captured for the pet trade.

"I consider it like a bait car that police departments use to apprehend people who are stealing vehicles," explains Arizona Game and Fish Department officer Ken Dinquel.

For nearly 20 years, the Oregon State Police Department's Fish and Wildlife Division has run a decoy operation targeting violators who hunt off-season from their cars and roadways or at night with the aid of a spotlight.

Under state law, firing at a wildlife enforcement decoy is considered the same as firing at a live animal. All the same penalties apply.

"The people that shoot at decoys are wildlife thieves," said Lt. Steve Lane. "They're not hunters."

Robot Animals

These animals look and act just like the real things.

Molded-fiberglass animals are wrapped in genuine hides obtained by government officers through donations or illegal kills.

Inside the bodies are radio-controlled motors—the same type found in toy cars or planes—allowing wildlife officers to remotely move a decoy's head, ears, and tail. Special reflective eyes glow at night when light is shined on them.

The robots don't come cheap: Prices range from $500 for turkey to $5,500 for a grizzly bear.

But Bob Koons, executive director of the Humane Society of the United States's Wildlife Land Trust, feels the price is well worth it.

That's because decoys put law enforcement officers and poachers in the same spot at the same time, leading to more convictions.

Koons, whose trust donates the high-tech decoys to law enforcement agencies nationwide, said the program has "been extremely successful."

Illegal Immigrants

In Arizona, wildlife officers are stepping up efforts against the rising number of illegal immigrants hunting at night for meat to feed their families, and, in some cases, entire neighborhoods.

Dinquel, a 20-year veteran with the game-and-fish department, said poaching cases—which include illegal collection of protected species of reptiles for the pet trade—are a huge problem statewide.

The department runs about 12 decoy operations annually, he said, nabbing violators about 80 percent of the time. But not everyone who is caught knows they've done something wrong.

"Oftentimes there's just some disconnect with people on the wildlife laws," Dinquel said.

"They know that buying drugs on the streets of Phoenix is illegal, but they don't view shooting a deer as that big of a deal."

Read more!

UK plastic bag charge hailed as a huge success

Marks & Spencers' 5p charge on carrier bags has seen an 80% reduction in their use in the first year

Hilary Osborne, guardian.co.uk 1 May 09;

Jim Royle of BBC's The Royle Family was scandalised at the thought of paying 5p for a carrier bag, but the introduction of charges for single-use bags has been a huge success, according to figures from high street retailers.

They reveal that high profile campaigns and fashion-statement alternatives to plastic, combined with charges and incentives such as Green loyalty points have helped some retailers cut bag use by as much as 85%.

Since launching a 5p charge for food bags last May as part of its Plan A scheme to reduce waste, Marks & Spencers says the number of bags taken to cart posh ready meals home has fallen by 80%, from 460m bags a year to 80m. The National Trust, which introduced a charge on 1 May last year in its shops and garden centres, has managed to slash plastic bag usage by 85%, or 1m bags a year. It said just 5% of its customers were now taking the disposable option.

"We are really pleased at how quickly customers have reacted and adapted their shopping habits by investing in durable alternatives in which to carry their purchases," said the National Trust's Stuart Richards, adding that in the trust's shops, sales of reusable jute bags have soared as plastic bag use has fallen away.

Marks & Spencer has also managed to persuade its customers to remember to take along their own bags when they hit the shops. "The main driver for the reduction is people bringing in an alternative bag, either a plastic bag for life or cloth bag with them when they shop with us and we have encouraged them to do so through regular bag for life giveaways," a spokeswoman said.

M&S is among 22 high street names that signed up to a target of reducing the environmental impact of bag use by 25% by the end of last year. They managed to exceed the target, cutting waste by 40%, and are now working towards halving bag use from 2006 levels by the end of May. While some opted to charge for bags, others went for a carrot rather than a stick.

Retailers who have incentivised customers to reuse bags have also seen success. Tesco, which offers one Green point to its clubcard customers for every bag they reuse, says it has cut bag use by 50% since it launched the scheme in August 2006, saving 3bn bags in the process. In the past year alone, 1.8bn bags have been saved. Sainsbury's, which has also offered extra loyalty points to customers, will not reveal how many bags it has saved, but says experiments such as sending text messages to customers to remind them to bring a bag when they go shopping had proved successful.

Figures from the Waste & Resources Action Programme show the total number of bags in circulation fell from 13.4bn in 2006 to 9.9bn last year, however that still represents 400 per household. The Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs recently launched the "get a bag habit" campaign to remind people to reuse bags rather than hoarding them in drawers and under the sink. It estimates the voluntary targets set by retailers will result in a reduction of around 5bn bags a year in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and will eventually save 130,000 tonnes of CO2 – equivalent to taking 41,000 cars off the road each year.

Read more!

Yes, the planet’s future is a worry, but we’ll carry on flying, consumers tell opinion poll

Marcus Leroux, Times Online 30 Apr 09;

Even consumers who care about the environment are not willing to fly less and are sceptical about the benefits of carbon-offsetting, a poll for The Times has found.

Only 38 per cent of concerned consumers said that they would take fewer flights in the next 12 months, down from 46 per cent last year, while just 10 per cent believe that offsetting is an effective way to tackle climate change, according to the Populus poll.

The findings will hearten the aviation industry as it faces the combined challenge of a global economic downturn, amid which passenger numbers fell by 11 per cent last month, and concern about the environmental impact of the growth in air travel in the past decade.

Cynicism about carbon-offsetting, by which a passenger or a company pays a premium for carbon-saving measures elsewhere, has convinced people that it is merely a “sticking plaster”, David Lourie, an analyst from Good Business, said.

Only 16 per cent of respondents had offset carbon emissions and 41 per cent said that it was “purely a gesture”. Concern about a lack of transparency on carbon-saving schemes associated with offsetting programmes appears to be well-founded: of those who had paid to offset flights, only 45 per cent knew where the money went.

However, the onus of environmental responsibility still rests upon airlines, according to concerned consumers. Some 38 per cent said that carriers bore responsibility, ahead of the Government and aircraft manufacturers, with 19 per cent each.

Passengers and oil companies were bottom of the list.

Respondents believing that the airline industry is taking its environmental impact seriously have risen by nearly half – to 39 per cent, from 27 per cent. Yet 84 per cent believe that airlines should be forced to retire older, more polluting aircraft.

Budget airlines, such as Ryanair, fare poorly in the survey on perceptions of ethical and environmental behaviour, even though they tend to use newer aircraft than larger rivals, and to fly with fewer empty seats.

This is likely to reflect environmental concern about the growth of budget air travel itself. Companies such as Ryanair and easyJet have comparatively low environmental impact per passenger mile.

Mr Lourie suggested that Ryanair’s bad showing may be related to Michael O’Leary, its outspoken chief executive, who has said: “We will take [passengers] off British Airways and the other old carriers who are flying gas-guzzling, ancient aircraft and pack them into fuel-efficient planes. So Ryanair will be saving the environment – not that we care much.” Mr O’Leary has also said: “I listen to all this drivel about turning down the central heating, going back to candles, returning to the Dark Ages. You do that if you want to. But none of it will make any difference. It just panders to your middle-class, middle-aged angst and guilt.”

Ryanair’s load factor – how full its aircraft are – was 77 per cent last month, against its 12-month average of 81 per cent. British Airways had a load factor of 73 per cent last month.

Mr Lourie said: “The aviation industry does have a huge impact on the environment, though its contribution is very little compared with overall emissions. It’s an issue that the motor industry has shirked in the past by ploughing on regardless. There’s still a long way to go for the airline industry.”

The Ryanair effect shows that how a company communicates its environmental message matters, Mr Lourie said. “Airlines need to show commitment with big steps like increasing load factor and increasing the efficiency of flights and retiring planes earlier,” he said. “But there’s also potential for small steps, such as on the supply chain, that will help to address these issues. That would help to demonstrate to the consumer that not only are they addressing the big issues where they can, but also the little issues that may be more about showing consumers they are serious.”

The airline industry has complained of being unfairly singled out on carbon emissions. In 2006 it was responsible for 6.4 per cent of Britain’s greenhouse-gas emissions, but campaign groups such as Plane Stupid say that air travel’s growth is unsustainable.

Yet even among concerned consumers the case against a third runway at Heathrow is not conclusive: two thirds support expansion of Britain’s aviation capacity, but two thirds oppose the building of a third runway.

More generally, the findings suggest a gap between perceptions and reality. Concerned consumers were asked which did most harm to the environment from a range of activities, including heating your home and flying to Europe twice a year. Heating ranked last, with only 11 per cent identifying it – rightly – as having most impact.

Overall, the concerned consumer poll indicates a better opinion of companies’ social and environmental records. Since people have become more critical of companies during the credit crunch, Mr Lourie cited the change as a sign of improved consumer sentiment.

Read more!

UK government to fathom depth of marine energy potential

The Guardian 1 May 09;

A new study will provide the British government with data on how much renewable power the seas could generate. From the BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network

A new government-commissioned study is to examine the full energy potential of English and Welsh waters, as part of ongoing efforts to accelerate the development and deployment of wave and tidal generation technologies.

The new study, which will be carried out by environmental consultancies AEA and Hartley Anderson, will seek input from developers, utilities and small businesses about how and where they plan to install marine renewable energy projects.

Speaking at the British Wind Energy Agency (BWEA) tidal and wave conference earlier today, energy minister Lord Hunt said the study marked a "significant step forward" in the government's plans to bolster the UK's marine energy sector, adding that it came at "a pivotal stage" for the emerging industry as growing numbers of firms deliver devices that are ready to be deployed.

"The screening exercise will allow us to better understand the energy potential of marine energy devices and the realistic timescale of when multiple devices will be installed and commissioned," he said.

The government said that the results of the preliminary study will be used to decide whether or not a full-scale Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) is required for English and Welsh waters, in addition to the SEAs that have already been carried out off the coast of Scotland and in the Severn Estuary.

However, the Renewable Energy Association (REA) expressed disappointment at the move, arguing that there was no need for a screening exercise and that a full SEA should be given the go-ahead straight away. "It's good that government seems to recognise the need for an SEA but we'd rather have heard that the work was actually going to start," said Steph Merry, head of marine renewable energy at the REA. "The screening exercise is an unfortunate delay and the timescale needs to be expedited."

Scientists and engineers have long argued that the UK has some of the richest marine energy resources in the world, and the country is already home to a number of the world's leading marine energy firms.

Previous studies have suggested that tidal technologies in the Severn Estuary could generate five per cent of the UK's electricity, while Scottish first minister Alex Salmond recently delivered a high-profile commitment to make Scotland the "Saudi Arabia of marine energy".

The REA said that under present English and Welsh rules The Crown Estate, which manages UK marine resources, will only grant short-term leases for demonstration projects no larger than 10MW, effectively blocking larger developments. In contrast, the Scottish government has followed its SEA by opening bidding in the Penland Firth for tidal devices up to 300MW in size.

"An SEA would make a huge difference to the development of commercial-scale wet renewables in England and Wales," said Merry. "The UK is currently a world leader in the development of wave and tidal stream devices. It is imperative that we keep hold of that lead in order to meet our renewable energy targets and to ensure jobs and investment in UK manufacturing now and in the future."

A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said that there was no fixed date for a report, but that the screening exercise would take about six months.

• This article was shared by our content partner BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network


UK Launches Green Study For Marine Energy
Nao Nakanishi, PlanetArk 1 May 09;

BATH - The UK government is to launch an environmental study on marine energy projects in England and Wales, paving the way for commercial wave and tidal devices to be deployed.

Lord Hunt, Climate Change Minister, told a conference the government would start screening for the Strategic Environmental Assessment for marine energy in the two countries, required for all major infrastracture projects by the EU.

It is to be completed by late 2011.

"It's a signal really that we are very serious about marine (energy)," he told reporters.

The government wants Britain to become a world leader in wave and marine technologies, creating renewable energy jobs.

It was one of the sectors where the government had identified Britain had an advantage and it was to support.

"We have to make everything to support that sector. That's what we are doing with marine."

Last week, the government announced it would provide 405 million pounds ($600 million) to support emerging low-carbon technology, such as marine and tidal energy, as part of its efforts to reduce its carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050 from 1990 levels.

But the government's Marine Renewable Development Fund (MRDF) has been criticized for being too strict in selecting projects to spur sector growth.

Only full-scale projects that have collected data from three-months operating at sea qualify for support from the 50-million pound ($74.19 million) fund which was set up three years ago.

Commercial scale wave and tidal devices were only put into operation for the first time last year and there none with a full 3-months of data because of bad sea conditions.

The British Wind Energy Association(BWEA) welcomed the government move.

"It will open Britain's coast line and estuaries to clean, green energy that will help power a low carbon economy," it said.

(Editing by Keiron Henderson)

Read more!

Texas wind farm pioneers radar technology to protect migrating birds

US wind farms kill about 7,000 birds a year but radar systems developed for Nasa can prevent fatal collisions by detecting approaching birds and analysing weather conditions

Suzanne Goldenberg, guardian.co.uk 1 May 09;

It could be considered an air traffic control system for birds who have flown perilously off course. A wind farm in southern Texas, situated on a flight path used by millions of birds each autumn and spring, is pioneering the use of radar technology to avoid deadly collisions between a 2,500lb rotating blade and bird.

US wind farms kill about 7,000 birds a year, according to a recent study. Other studies of individual wind farms suggest a higher toll on bats and birds, who crash into towers, blades, power lines and other installations. Estimates from a single wind farm in Altamont, California showed as many as 1,300 birds of prey killed each year – or about three a day.

Such direct threats to wildlife, and concerns for habitats, have increasingly pitted conservationists against the renewable energy industry. A handful of wind power projects in the US have been shelved because of wildlife concerns.

But new radar technology now in use at the Peñascal wind farm in Texas claims to have found a balance between competing environmental concerns – taking action against global warming and protecting wildlife – by protecting migrating birds at times of peak danger.

The 202MW farm, operated by the Spanish firm, Iberdrola Renewables, is the first in the world to use radar systems to enable it to shut down automatically if bad weather hits in peak migration times.

The installation, which opened late last month, uses radar systems originally developed for Nasa and the US Air Force to detect approaching birds from as far as four miles away, analyse weather conditions, and then determine in real time whether they are in danger of flying into the rotating blades.

If they are, the turbines are programmed to shut down, restarting once the birds are safely on their way, said Gary Andrews, the chairman of DeTect, Inc, the Florida company that developed the technology.

The system spots the birds and assesses their altitude, numbers and the visibility. "With all these pieces coming together properly ... the turbines will shut down," said Andrews.

Conservationists however are sceptical of such an easy fix. They argue that wind farms should still be sited away from migration routes in the first place, and that the technology does nothing to solve the problem of installations that disturb bird and animal habitats and nesting grounds.

"The bottom line with wind energy is that it has great potential but it must be done correctly," said Doug Inkley, a senior scientist at the National Wildlife Federation. "The windiest site may not be the most suitable and one may have to live with having less windy conditions and less impact on wildlife."

Even in Texas – where there are virtually no environmental restrictions on wind farms – there was controversy when the Peñascal project was first proposed and local conservationist organisations tried to block the project in the courts.

The Peñascal wind farm is located on the Central Flyway, a main route for migratory birds in the Americas.

Millions of birds funnel through the narrow air corridor during the semiannual migration. A study in the autumn of 2007 found 4,000 birds an hour passing overhead.

More than 30 species of warbler alone fly the route, along with waterfowl, raptors, and hawks. The area is also known as a nesting ground for reddish egret, which the Audubon Society views as threatened, terns and pelicans.

In ordinary circumstances, the birds would be thousands of feet above the wind farm, passing the turbines without incident. But that can change dramatically in a sudden storm.

A sudden cold snap, like the legendary Texan "Blue Northern", can prove fatal for migrating birds, bringing strong head winds and fog. The birds, which typically fly at night, become disoriented and exhausted, elevating the risk they will lose altitude and crash into 400ft wind towers along their route, wildlife experts say.

"If inclement weather hits the birds that are aloft at that point may be very vulnerable," said Christopher Shackleford, an ornithologist with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

Andrews says his radar systems can avoid such consequences – and at relatively little cost to the wind farm. Forecasts suggest the wind farm would be forced to close only between 40 to 60 hours during peak migration times.

The US Air Force has been using similar technologies for more than a decade. Nasa also turned to such systems after a turkey buzzard flew into the Discovery shuttle moments after its launch in 2005.

The radar sets developed by DeTect draw on a network of 148 weather radar to provide real-time information about bird activity. It is updated every six minutes.

The wind power industry has used such data before when planning wind farms, Andrews said. It is illegal, under US law, to kill migratory birds or damage their nesting areas. But this is the first time that a wind farm will use such data in real time.

Andrews's company is also working on a variation that will allow wind farms to detect raptor if they start diving to close to the turbines as they chase down their prey.

Conservationists are reserving judgment. "The wind energy industry makes bold claims, and they need to prove them," said Andrew Kasner, director of bird conservation for Audubon Texas.

He added: "It's possible for them to do [switch off the turbines], but I don't know whether they would do it during peak wind time."

Read more!

Time For A Fair Discussion On Black Soot

Dr Vandana Prakash, PlanetArk 1 May 09;

A recent NY Times articles brings to fore the contribution of Soot, also known as Black Carbon, in the global warming. And how efforts are underway to reign in the global warming by replacing the mud-stoves in villages of India! On the Earth day, a legislation was introduced in US Senate for EPA to assess the options for reducing the black carbon pollution.

It is but natural to try to pick the "low-hanging fruit" first of all. Soot from mud-stoves in Indian villages is presented as a ready culprit of expensive health and environmental damage. But do we not need to evaluate whether it is in the nature of 'robbery' or of 'petty theft'?

The mud-stove change is projected as a ready alternative to CO2 handling in Green House Gases (GHG) management; a quick and cheap redressal to glacier-meltdown and of global warming. But, in any case, soot clears out of the atmosphere in a matter of weeks whereas CO2 hangs about for a long time. So, by leaving CO2 in the atmosphere and removing the soot, what kind of time are we really buying? Since the particulate matter will any way process itself out of the atmosphere relatively soon, I wonder if the money couldn't be put to better use in finding a fundamental solution? It needs to clarified that I am not advocating that soot should be left alone; but that the longer lifecycle of CO2 in the atmosphere should not be used as a reason to leave CO2 alone.

The reach of the soot is not too spread-out (unlike other GHGs), so how global is this mud-stove- replacement solution going to be? I have not forgotten Delhi's commendable efforts on setting local standards for PM that were stricter than national ones to ameliorate its 'fourth most-polluted city in the world' problem. But is it even fair to ask some small village (that makes but a tiny contribution to GHG emissions) to alter its lifestyle fundamentally so that major polluters can continue their ways unchanged?

Indeed, this poses a fundamental dilemma for me. A news-report just the other day had left me in a similar conundrum. The newspaper was reporting on certain environmentalists launching protests against the killing of a man-eater tiger by villagers who had been suffering the loss of man and material at the hands (or should I say paws) of a tiger (to be precise, a tigress) for some time. Even though I feel strongly about the conservation of this species in its habitat {I consider it sheer arrogance of humans to want to re-define nature and have everything as it suits them} and actively seek to save the wild tiger, I was unable to suppress my agitation. I felt villagers were well within their rights to try to protect their lives and livelihood - catching live a man-eater tiger is no small feat even in my very limited knowledge. And desperation will drive people to dire straights. As someone said: "Darkness falls early where there is the fear of the tiger." (Bengali proverb: Jekhane bagher bhoye, Shekhanehi shondhya hoye).

It gladdens my heart to see scientists adopt a practical, people-centered approach to Black Carbon. Naturally, pleas to abandon age-old practices on account of global warming are not likely to cut much ice with someone struggling to provide a 'roti' to her child. But health problems and shortened life will: I am so with Dr. Ibrahim Rehman (The Energy and Resource Institute) on that. I think it might help to collect some specific stories (anecdotal evidence) in Kohlua where poor health and pre-mature death can be directly linked to mud-stoves (via, say, respiratory problem). Better still, in the areas of Agra where mud-stoves and diesel engines are prohibited to preserve the Taj, can evidence about health-gains with soot-reduction be garnered? This might be more convincing and change-inspiring to a common man.

Despite the noble intentions of the "Surya" (the cookstove project), I wish it also followed more people-centric approach like Dr. Rehman. I think its design needs improvement to incorporate the simplicity and sturdiness of the mud-cookstove. This was so elementary in its construction that a family could build and maintain its own stove without outside help and at very little cost. I hope the more attention be paid to the researchers' complaints of fraility of the substitute stove. And (though we are taught 'appearances are deceptive' and must be de-emphasized) I feel something familiar-looking and simple - rather than looking "like scientific instrument" - will catch the fancy of the villagers almost sub-consciously. It will help with the transition and, if the reports are not hyperbolic, will help with world-transformation. I think BP's innovative marketing approach and rural perspective with respect to the "Urja" stoves or Shell Foundations's carburettor design stoves might have useful lessons to offer to "Surya".

CO2, the number one concern in global warming, the tough-to-clear pollutant - the hardened criminal - bears the single largest onus for global warming with a 40% contribution. Black Carbon from all sources - cookstoves, diesel engines and coal plants - claims 18% with the mud-stoves responsible for the bulk. Does this not point to the fallacy of treating "soot from Third World stoves" as the new primary target? If nothing else, the problem needs to be recognized in its correct proportions. Third World stoves seem like an easy target. But if between the mud-stoves (that are said to hold the lead) and the other two sources the distribution is of 51% - 49%, then equally major sources of Black Carbon are still left even once mud-stoves get replaced. Adding filters and scrubbers to diesel engines and coal plants seems like an easier (and possibly more concentrated, area-wise,) way to go than generating a new way of life by visiting and convincing millions of individual households, across hundreds of villages in Asia and Africa. The report commissioned by the US Senate will go a long way in understanding the options for reducing the black carbon footprint and its impact on global warming.

From an individual point of view, I would say that an ocean is the accumulation of many, many little drops (Hindi proverb: Boond - boond se saagar bane). At the same time, where global warming is concerned, I think 'You versus Me' is unlikely to help: To grudge the Third World poor their daily bread so that the First World can run its Hummers and air-conditioners hardly seems right. As I read about the failures to arrive at an accord acceptable to both developing and developed countries, I always think that a truly global perspective - an 'us' approach - is needed. A widely acceptable median must be arrived at. An attempt to understand the other's viewpoint, to step into their shoes is critical.

Just as, overtime, it became necessary to redefine the growth and development discussions in terms of 'development with a human face,' I think it is time for 'environment with a human face.'

Reprinted with permission from Ecoworldly.com

Read more!

Oil punt makes big bucks but coastlines at risk

Tom Bergin Reuters 1 May 09;

LONDON, May 1 (Reuters) - Big international oil companies are making hundreds of millions of dollars storing crude on tankers offshore in a trading play that environmentalists say sidesteps shipping rules and puts coastlines at risk.

The $100 per barrel drop in crude oil prices since July, to around $50, has pushed the market into an unusually sharp contango -- a scenario where the cost of oil today is much lower than the price of oil in the future.

Meanwhile, the global economic crisis has led to a more than halving in the cost of chartering oil tankers since last year.

This combination has created an opportunity to buy oil, simultaneously sell it for future delivery to lock in a profit, while storing the oil at sea until the delivery date.

London-based oil major BP made an exceptional gain of around $500 million in its downstream arm in the first three months of 2009, mainly due to the contango trade, Chief Financial Officer Byron Grote told analysts this week. [ID:nLS549105]

U.S. rival ConocoPhillips said last week that it spent around $1 billion in the first quarter buying crude to take advantage of the unusual market structure.

Other oil companies including Royal Dutch Shell said they also benefited from arbitraging the contango, while ship brokers said trading groups such as Swiss-based Gunvor and U.S.-based Koch Industries [KCHIN.UL] also participated. [ID:nLS836370]

In total, close to 100 million barrels of crude are being stored offshore, compared to none a year ago, Jens Martin Jensen, acting chief executive of Frontline , one of the world's biggest independent oil tanker owners, said last week. [ID:nLM299333]

Analysts have since said the figure could be even higher and that around 25 million barrels of refined products, including jet fuel and gasoil, are also being stored.

This compares with global daily consumption of around 84 million barrels a day and the roughly 600 million barrels of crude which is normally in transit on the seas from producers to users, according to International Energy Agency figures.

"This is an insane situation," said Professor Rick Steiner, marine biologist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, who worked on the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, the U.S.'s worst ever.

The Valdez clean up cost $2.5 billion and twenty years on, still-pungent oil still lingers on some Alaskan beaches.

UNNECESSARY RISKS

Environmentalists object particularly strongly to the armada of tankers currently sitting in the Gulf of Mexico, the North Sea, the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf and off West Africa, because it serves no function in the supply of oil to consumers.

"The only people who derive any benefit from that activity are the people buying and selling the crude and the risk is borne by the coastal communities," David Santillo, a scientist with environmental group Greenpeace at the University of Exeter.

BP, Shell, Koch, Conoco and Gunvor declined or were unavailable to comment on the environmental risks involved.

Offshore oil storage brings risks additional to those posed by shipping crude to market because of the reliance on ship-to-ship transfers, rather than simply shipping crude from one permanent export terminal to another.

"This represents a higher risk of oil spills," said Marius Holn, co-chairman of Bellona, a green group that focuses on the North Sea.

The Bunga Kasturi Dua, a Malaysian VLCC (very large crude carrier) with a capacity of 2 million barrels, which ship brokers say is under contract to ConocoPhillips, is an example.

The vessel arrived empty at Scapa Flow, offshore Scotland, on Feb. 14 and was filled by three ship-to-ship transfers.

It will likely unload in a similar fashion in the coming months, as previous ships that anchored at the sheltered waters around the Orkney Islands, such as the VLCC Eagle Vienna, did before sailing away again.

UNREGULATED

A VLCC has to pay 88 pounds ($131) a day to the Orkney harbour authority to remain anchored at Scapa Flow, compared with the 4 pounds an hour it costs to park a car in central London.

"It's quite a good deal," Orkney Harbours Marketing Manager Michael Morrison said of his rates.

Once a vessel meets health and safety standards, it does not need a permit to sit fully laden in UK territorial waters, a spokesman for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency said.

It is the same in other countries, largely because no one envisaged offshore storage would develop, environmentalists say.

The 50 VLCCs currently storing crude break the spirit of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, known as Marpol, the rulebook for carrying oil at sea, Simon Walmsley, Head of Marine at conservation group WWF, said.

Marpol, which is overseen by shipping regulator the International Marine Organisation (IMO), a United Nations agency, envisaged that oil would move from producer to user as quickly as possible.

Yet some Marpol provisions probably could be used to curb offshore storage, Walmsley said. "The IMO should act".

A spokeswoman for the IMO said she was unaware of any Marpol rule which would bar offshore oil storage.

Ports may also be breaking rules, common in many countries, that require environmental impact assessments (EIAs) to be conducted before new activities can be undertaken.

Morrison said an EIA of risks posed by crude storage was conducted at Scapa Flow and posed minimal risk.

The controversy comes as oil companies' green credentials -- often touted in their advertising -- face fresh attacks, after cancelled investments in wind and solar energy and a push into Canada's oil sands, a dirty and energy-intensive form of crude production. [ID:nLH256178]

"This is just one more example of companies placing profits over concern for the environment," Steiner said. For a Factbox on oil storage at sea, please click on [ID:nLT37985] ANALYSIS-Floating oil lake likely to curb future oil prices [ID: nLU208217] ($1=.6739 Pound) (Additional reporting by Jonathan Saul; editing by Simon Jessop)

Read more!